Download Chapter 52 HA Text

52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
Section 1 – Introduction
“We seem to have a sinkhole,” the new secretary of defense, Clark Clifford, told President Johnson in March
1968. “We put in more, they match it.” For three years, the United States had been putting more troops,
weapons, and money into Vietnam but was more bogged down than ever. While Clifford described the conflict
as a sinkhole, others called it a swamp, a quagmire, or a morass. The idea was the same: the United States was
stuck in Vietnam with no easy way out.
Clifford was not the only policy adviser with a negative message. The war had turned several hawkish advisers
into doves. They now counseled Johnson to cut back on the bombing, reduce troop levels, and pursue
negotiations.
One of LBJ’s closest friends in Congress, Senator Mike Mansfield, gave him similar advice. When the president
wanted to send 40,000 more troops to Vietnam, the senator objected. “You’re just getting us involved deeper,”
he said. “You’ve got to offer the American people some
hope . . . It’s costing too much in lives. And it’s going
to cost you more if you don’t change your opinion.”
When Johnson became president in 1963, few
Americans were paying much attention to the war
because it did not involve U.S. combat troops. Two
years later, however, the war had escalated and had
become front-page news. Every day, the public learned
more about U.S. soldiers fighting and dying in Vietnam.
Yet most Americans still supported the president’s
efforts to contain communism in Southeast Asia.
By 1968, however, many of those Americans were
blaming Johnson for a war that was out of control. They
called it “Johnson’s War.” For LBJ, the burden of
responsibility was heavy. He had made great strides
with his Great Society agenda for social reform. But
with public opinion shifting against his war policy, he
feared that he would also lose public support for his
civil rights and antipoverty programs. The enormous
pressures and frustrations of the Vietnam War were
taking a toll on Johnson and his presidency.
Larry Burrows-Time Life Pictures/Getty Images
Even before the United States introduced combat troops to Vietnam in 1965, some U.S. soldiers were dying in the conflict. This photograph shows
war dead returning home in 1962. As the number of troops increased and the death count rose, more Americans turned against the war.
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
Section 2 – U.S. Troops Face Difficult Conditions
Larry Burrows-Time Life Pictures/Getty Images
U.S. soldiers spent much of their time on patrol, seeking to engage the
enemy. They trudged through dense vegetation, swamps, and other
difficult terrain, carrying rifles, ammunition, and packs weighing 90
pounds or more.
Initially, much of the pressure on LBJ came from
hawks in Congress and from the military, who called
for more troops in Vietnam. LBJ wanted to fight a
limited war with a limited number of soldiers. The
American public, he believed, would turn against him
if he allowed troop levels—or casualties—to rise too
high.
By 1968, most of the ground troops in Vietnam were
not professional soldiers like the marines who first
landed at Da Nang. As the war progressed, more and
more of the fighting was done by men who had been
drafted into the army. Many of them took a dim view
of the war. In a letter home, one draftee summed up
the feelings of many soldiers when he wrote, “We are
the unwilling working for the unqualified to do the
unnecessary for the ungrateful.” This attitude toward
the war reflected the difficult conditions that U.S.
soldiers faced in Vietnam.
Fighting in Unfamiliar Territory
One set of difficulties had to do with the geography and climate of South Vietnam. Few American GIs had ever
experienced such hot and humid conditions. In some areas, temperatures rose above 90°F much of the year, and
heavy monsoon rains fell from May to October. One GI recalled his reaction upon landing in Vietnam, when the
plane door first opened. “The air rushed in like poison, hot and choking . . . I was not prepared for the heat.”
This uncomfortable tropical climate also gave rise to a host of insects and other pests, as well as diseases like
malaria.
Perhaps the greatest geographic challenge for U.S. soldiers, however, was Vietnam’s rugged topography.
Troops had to march through soggy, lowland rice paddies and swamps and over steep, jungle-clad mountains.
The heavily forested terrain often made it difficult to locate the enemy. Unlike U.S. soldiers, the Viet Cong and
the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) knew this land intimately and were skilled at concealing themselves in the
dense tropical vegetation.
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
Bettmann/Corbis
The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) supported the Viet Cong in South
Vietnam with troops and materiel. They also supplied military training
to the largely peasant army of insurgents.
In an effort to deny the enemy its forest cover, the
U.S. military sprayed chemical herbicides from the
air. These herbicides stripped the foliage from plants
and killed many trees. The favored herbicide was
Agent Orange, named for the color of the barrels in
which it was stored. The military sprayed Agent
Orange along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and in many
other areas. It also used herbicides to kill crops that
might feed the enemy. However, this spraying had a
limited effect on enemy operations because the forest cover in Vietnam was so extensive. It also contaminated
the soil and water, destroyed civilian food sources, and exposed civilians and soldiers to toxins that posed longterm health risks.
Engaging an Elusive Enemy
As the United States escalated its commitment to the defense of South Vietnam in 1965, the Viet Cong and
NVA realized that they could not match superior U.S. firepower. To win they had to engage in guerrilla
warfare, relying on the element of surprise and their skill at disappearing into the landscape.
The ability of the insurgents to avoid detection frustrated U.S. commanders. Besides concealing themselves in
the jungle, Viet Cong and NVA soldiers often hid from their American pursuers in underground tunnels. Some
of these tunnels had several exits, which made escape easier. Others were even more elaborate, containing
living areas, storage spaces, and even kitchens.
The Viet Cong also had the ability to “hide in plain sight.” A South Vietnamese peasant tilling the soil by day
might be a guerrilla killing Americans by night. GIs passing through a small village could not tell friend from
foe. They could trust no one, not even women or children.
To counter these guerrilla war tactics, the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, General William
Westmoreland, decided to fight a war of attrition—a military campaign designed to wear down the enemy’s
strength. The United States hoped to eliminate so many enemy troops that the Viet Cong and NVA could no
longer fight the war.
The chief tactic in this strategy was the search-and-destroy mission. Small units of soldiers, called platoons,
would search out insurgents and draw them into a fight. Then they would call in an air strike by helicopter
gunships or jet fighter-bombers to destroy the enemy force. This search-and-destroy tactic appeared effective
when measured by the enemy body count—the number of soldiers killed. Communist deaths far exceeded
American losses. For Westmoreland, the body count became the key measure of U.S. progress in the war.
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
Search-and-destroy missions, however, made U.S. combat soldiers clear targets for enemy attack. Insurgents
frequently ambushed platoons as they marched through the jungle. Snipers, or sharpshooters, sometimes picked
off U.S. soldiers from concealed locations. Soldiers also fell prey to land mines—explosive devices, buried just
below ground, that blew up when stepped on. Men on patrol also had to watch for booby traps, such as tripwires
connected to explosives and sharpened stakes coated with poison.
Many soldiers managed to overcome these challenging circumstances. They served with distinction and carried
out their combat duties as required. Others, however, became severely demoralized. During their 12-month tour
of duty in Vietnam, some soldiers focused solely on survival, avoiding combat when possible. Low morale also
led to increased drug use.
The Limited War Proves Ineffective
The United States had reasons for pursuing a limited war. First, General Westmoreland believed that a war of
attrition could achieve victory. The goal was to kill more enemy soldiers than North Vietnam or the Viet Cong
could replace. If the strategy worked, the communists would have to give up eventually. Through limited war,
Westmoreland thought, the United States could achieve its main goal of establishing a democratic South
Vietnam.
Second, U.S. leaders saw grave dangers in pursuing a total war with no limits. Total war calls for the complete
mobilization of a nation’s resources to achieve victory. This approach would have meant invading North
Vietnam and forcing the communists to surrender. It would likely have led to an enormous American death toll.
Also, China and the Soviet Union, which were providing military aid to North Vietnam, might be provoked to
intervene directly, potentially resulting in a nuclear confrontation.
The limited war proved ineffective, however, because the strategy of attrition failed. There were simply too
many enemy forces to eliminate. Ho Chi Minh had once warned the French, “You can kill ten of my men for
every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win.” The same held true a decade
later. Some 200,000 North Vietnamese men reached draft age every year. Westmoreland’s annual body counts
never came close to that figure. The war continued, and antiwar sentiments began to grow in the United States.
Most Americans could not tolerate a war, especially an undeclared war, that seemed to drag on endlessly at a
growing cost in American lives.
Ultimately, Americans underestimated their enemy. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese saw the United
States as another colonial power that had to be expelled from their country. They were determined to fight on,
no matter how long the war took or how deadly it became. The commitment of the United States to the war was
much less certain.
Section 3 – The War Divides the People of
South Vietnam
Larry Burrows-Time Life Pictures/Getty Images
GIs on search-and-destroy missions often burned or bombed South
Vietnamese villages. Such actions were authorized if soldiers were fired
upon or if the people in the village were known to support the Viet Cong.
These tactics turned millions of peasants into refugees.
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
The Vietnam War deeply divided the South Vietnamese people. Some, especially in the countryside, joined the
Viet Cong or supported their cause. Others, mostly in the cities, backed the government of South Vietnam. A
third group, perhaps even the majority, remained neutral in the conflict. They were often caught in the middle
when fighting broke out. One of those in the middle made a plea to both sides:
Our people no longer want to take sides in this war that is gradually but inexorably destroying us. We have no
desire to be called an “outpost of the Free World” or to be praised for being “the vanguard people in the world
socialist revolution.” We simply want to be a people—the Vietnamese people.
—Ly Qui Chung, Saigon newspaper editor, 1970
Contending for the Loyalty of the Vietnamese People
American leaders knew that gaining the trust and support of people like Ly Qui Chung was a crucial element in
defeating the insurgency. So, in addition to the “shooting war,” the United States mounted a separate campaign
to win over the Vietnamese people and undermine support for the Viet Cong. The key to this “other war” was
pacification—a policy designed to promote security and stability in South Vietnam.
Pacification involved two main programs, both run by the Saigon government but organized by the U.S. Army
and the CIA and funded by the United States. The first aimed to bring economic development to rural South
Vietnam. Rural development projects ranged from supplying villages with food and other goods to building
schools and bridges. This program also spread
propaganda designed to persuade the Vietnamese to
support the government of South Vietnam. In this
way, the United States hoped to “win the hearts and
minds” of the Vietnamese people.
The second pacification program sought to undermine
the communist insurgency by having the Army of the
Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) remove the Viet Cong
and their sympathizers from villages. The goal was to
cut off the flow of recruits to the enemy and make it
safe for rural Vietnamese to support the Saigon
government. As one CIA officer put it, “If we were
going to win the war, what we had to do was get in
and eliminate the ability of the VC [Viet Cong] to
control or influence the people.”
AP Photo
Few Vietnamese survived napalm bomb blasts, and those who did often
suffered severe burns. Napalm is a sticky gasoline gel that adheres to
everything it touches and burns everything in its path. About 10 percent
of all bombs dropped on Vietnam contained napalm.
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
The pacification campaign had many problems, though. First, the ARVN lacked the leadership, skills, and
dedication to effectively provide security for villages being pacified. Some ARVN units fought with distinction,
but many lacked training or the will to fight. Second, the U.S. forces in Vietnam were too busy fighting the Viet
Cong to pay much attention to “the other war” for villagers’ “hearts and minds.”
The lack of security, in turn, made it difficult for rural development teams to carry out their mission of building
roads, schools, and other basic infrastructure. In some areas, they might make progress on a project only to see
it disappear when a U.S. bomb destroyed their village. In other areas, development workers were targeted by the
Viet Cong. Not surprisingly, some fled. Those who stayed on risked death. During a seven-month period in
1966, the number of rural development team workers killed or kidnapped reached 3,015.
The Viet Cong Maintain Popular Support
The Americanization of the war also undermined efforts to lure rural Vietnamese away from the Viet Cong.
Search-and-destroy missions often created more enemies than friends among the peasants. One GI described a
typical search for Viet Cong in a rural community:
We would go through a village before dawn, rousting everybody out of bed, and kicking down doors and
dragging them out if they didn’t move fast enough. They all had underground bunkers inside their huts to
protect themselves against bombing and shelling. But to us the bunkers were Viet Cong hiding places, and we’d
blow them up with dynamite—and blow up the huts too . . . At the end of the day, the villagers would be turned
loose. Their homes had been wrecked, their chickens killed, their rice confiscated—and if they weren’t pro–Viet
Cong before we got there, they sure as hell were by the time we left.
—U.S. Marine William Ehrhart
Several other aspects of the U.S. war of attrition hurt the pacification cause. The “destroy” part of search and
destroy often included air strikes. A village that had been secured by pacification workers might suddenly be
bombed or shelled by U.S. forces trying to hit a Viet Cong target.
Missiles and bombs from U.S. planes leveled villages, killed thousands of civilians, and produced a steady
stream of refugees. But a different kind of weapon, napalm, may have brought the greatest agony to the
Vietnamese people. Napalm is jellied gasoline. It was dropped from planes as an incendiary bomb designed to
burn forests and destroy enemy installations. When it hit the ground, it set fire to everything—and everyone—it
touched.
The Viet Cong had significant popular support among Vietnamese nationalists. But the insurgents also used
brutal means to ensure loyalty. By intimidating, kidnapping, or assassinating local leaders, including
schoolteachers and religious figures, they eliminated voices of opposition. These ruthless tactics helped the Viet
Cong gain control of much of South Vietnam.
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
Section 4 – Growing Opposition to the War
Bettmann/Corbis
The news media brought stark images of the Vietnam War into American homes. As the war progressed,
television news and the print media increasingly displayed the grim realities of war. Here an army medic treats
a wounded soldier in 1966.
Bettmann/Corbis
The news media brought stark images of the Vietnam War into American homes. As the war progressed,
television news and the print media increasingly displayed the grim realities of war. Here an army medic treats
a wounded soldier in 1966.
Before 1966, vocal opposition to the Vietnam War came mainly from college students, pacifists, and a few
radical groups. Most Americans considered those protesters unpatriotic. In 1966, however, criticism arose from
within the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In early February, the committee chairman, Arkansas
Democrat J. William Fulbright, began public hearings on U.S. policy in Vietnam, seeking to answer the
questions, “Why are we fighting in Vietnam, and how do we plan to win?”
The committee questioned several prominent witnesses, including former ambassador George Kennan, whose
ideas in the late 1940s had inspired the containment doctrine. U.S. leaders used this doctrine to justify their
policies in Vietnam. At the committee hearing, Kennan spoke against those policies. He said, “If we were not
already involved as we are today in Vietnam, I would know of no reason why we should wish to become so
involved, and I could think of several reasons why we should wish not to.”
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
The War Comes to America’s Living Rooms
Americans might have paid little attention to the Fulbright hearings if they had not been televised by the three
major networks. Instead, millions of people across the country watched as Fulbright and other respected
senators criticized Johnson administration policies. From then on, more Americans would feel free to oppose
the war in Vietnam.
Television continued to play an important role in how Americans perceived the war. Night after night, news of
the war was broadcast into their living rooms. At first, those news reports struck a positive note. They described
U.S. successes and told upbeat stories about the courage and skill of American soldiers. As the war continued,
however, television reports began to show more scenes of violence, suffering, and destruction—the human toll
of the war.
Escalating Costs Raise Questions
The soaring costs of the war, both human and economic, began to trouble more Americans. In 1968, troop
levels rose to over 500,000 and the number of GIs killed in action exceeded 1,200 per month. During the same
year, the government spent $30 billion on the war. This huge expense led to increased inflation and higher taxes
for the American people.
As Americans began taking a closer look at the war, some began to question LBJ’s policies. They criticized the
bombing of North Vietnam and the sending of combat troops without a declaration of war. A growing number
began to echo Senator Fulbright’s question: “Why are we fighting in Vietnam?”
Television networks now focused most of their news coverage on the war. Viewers saw graphic images of
combat and rows of body bags containing dead U.S. soldiers. In April 1968, General Westmoreland declared,
“We have never been in a better relative position.” Yet to many Americans, the administration’s optimistic
assessments of the war now seemed overblown and even deceitful. Television newscasts emphasized a
credibility gap—the difference between the reality of the war and the Johnson administration’s portrayal of it.
Hawks and Doves Divide the Nation
Public opinion polls showed that by 1967 the American public was about evenly divided on the war. The views
of hawks and doves were pulling the nation in two directions. Hawks believed in the containment doctrine.
They argued that the war was morally correct and could be won by giving the military a free hand to expand the
fighting. Doves regarded U.S. actions as immoral and futile. In their view, the war was a civil conflict in which
the United States had no right to interfere. They wanted LBJ to seek peace.
The peace movement, or antiwar movement, blossomed on college campuses. In March 1965, faculty members
at the University of Michigan held a nightlong “teach-in” and debate on Vietnam and U.S. policy. Other teachins followed at campuses across the nation. Sit-ins, borrowed from the civil rights movement, also became a
popular way to protest the war. In February 1967, students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison occupied
a campus building to protest the arrival of recruiters from the Dow Chemical Company, the maker of napalm.
When the students refused to leave, police officers dragged them out. Other sit-ins followed around the country,
including at Columbia University in 1968.
Younger students also took action. Three students in Des Moines, Iowa, aged 13 to 16, wore black armbands to
school to protest the war. When the school suspended them for breaking school rules, they sued the school
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
district and later took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1969, the Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines
that students have a right to engage in symbolic speech—actions that express an opinion in a nonverbal manner.
Protesters also turned to civil disobedience. Some publicly burned their draft cards, while others took the more
serious step of refusing induction into the armed forces. One such “draft dodger,” world-champion boxer
Muhammad Ali, echoed the sentiments of many when he said, “I ain’t got no quarrel with no Viet Cong.” Other
young men between the ages of 18 and 21 complained that they could be sent off to fight even though they had
no right to vote against the war. Congress took their complaint seriously. In 1971, it passed the Twenty-sixth
Amendment to the Constitution, which lowered the voting age to 18. The states ratified the amendment just
three months later.
Many young men took advantage of college deferment, a law that exempted college students from the draft.
However, they could be drafted after graduation, which is partly why many students opposed the war so
strenuously. Still, the draft fell disproportionately on poor Americans and minorities who were unable to attend
college. This led some critics to label Vietnam a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” Citing the large
proportion of African Americans in Vietnam, Martin Luther King Jr. called it “a white man’s war, a black
man’s fight.”
Section 4 – Growing Opposition to the War
Bettmann/Corbis
The news media brought stark images of the Vietnam War into
American homes. As the war progressed, television news and the print
media increasingly displayed the grim realities of war. Here an army
medic treats a wounded soldier in 1966.
Before 1966, vocal opposition to the Vietnam War
came mainly from college students, pacifists, and a
few radical groups. Most Americans considered those
protesters unpatriotic. In 1966, however, criticism
arose from within the U.S. Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations. In early February, the committee
chairman, Arkansas Democrat J. William Fulbright,
began public hearings on U.S. policy in Vietnam, seeking to answer the questions, “Why are we fighting in
Vietnam, and how do we plan to win?”
The committee questioned several prominent witnesses, including former ambassador George Kennan, whose
ideas in the late 1940s had inspired the containment doctrine. U.S. leaders used this doctrine to justify their
policies in Vietnam. At the committee hearing, Kennan spoke against those policies. He said, “If we were not
already involved as we are today in Vietnam, I would know of no reason why we should wish to become so
involved, and I could think of several reasons why we should wish not to.”
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
The War Comes to America’s Living Rooms
Americans might have paid little attention to the Fulbright hearings if they had not been televised by the three
major networks. Instead, millions of people across the country watched as Fulbright and other respected
senators criticized Johnson administration policies. From then on, more Americans would feel free to oppose
the war in Vietnam.
Television continued to play an important role in how Americans perceived the war. Night after night, news of
the war was broadcast into their living rooms. At first, those news reports struck a positive note. They described
U.S. successes and told upbeat stories about the courage and skill of American soldiers. As the war continued,
however, television reports began to show more scenes of violence, suffering, and destruction—the human toll
of the war.
Escalating Costs Raise Questions
The soaring costs of the war, both human and economic, began to trouble more Americans. In 1968, troop
levels rose to over 500,000 and the number of GIs killed in action exceeded 1,200 per month. During the same
year, the government spent $30 billion on the war. This huge expense led to increased inflation and higher taxes
for the American people.
As Americans began taking a closer look at the war, some began to question LBJ’s policies. They criticized the
bombing of North Vietnam and the sending of combat troops without a declaration of war. A growing number
began to echo Senator Fulbright’s question: “Why are we fighting in Vietnam?”
Television networks now focused most of their news coverage on the war. Viewers saw graphic images of
combat and rows of body bags containing dead U.S. soldiers. In April 1968, General Westmoreland declared,
“We have never been in a better relative position.” Yet to many Americans, the administration’s optimistic
assessments of the war now seemed overblown and even deceitful. Television newscasts emphasized a
credibility gap—the difference between the reality of the war and the Johnson administration’s portrayal of it.
Hawks and Doves Divide the Nation
Public opinion polls showed that by 1967 the American public was about evenly divided on the war. The views
of hawks and doves were pulling the nation in two directions. Hawks believed in the containment doctrine.
They argued that the war was morally correct and could be won by giving the military a free hand to expand the
fighting. Doves regarded U.S. actions as immoral and futile. In their view, the war was a civil conflict in which
the United States had no right to interfere. They wanted LBJ to seek peace.
The peace movement, or antiwar movement, blossomed on college campuses. In March 1965, faculty members
at the University of Michigan held a nightlong “teach-in” and debate on Vietnam and U.S. policy. Other teachins followed at campuses across the nation. Sit-ins, borrowed from the civil rights movement, also became a
popular way to protest the war. In February 1967, students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison occupied
a campus building to protest the arrival of recruiters from the Dow Chemical Company, the maker of napalm.
When the students refused to leave, police officers dragged them out. Other sit-ins followed around the country,
including at Columbia University in 1968.
Younger students also took action. Three students in Des Moines, Iowa, aged 13 to 16, wore black armbands to
school to protest the war. When the school suspended them for breaking school rules, they sued the school
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
district and later took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1969, the Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines
that students have a right to engage in symbolic speech—actions that express an opinion in a nonverbal manner.
Protesters also turned to civil disobedience. Some publicly burned their draft cards, while others took the more
serious step of refusing induction into the armed forces. One such “draft dodger,” world-champion boxer
Muhammad Ali, echoed the sentiments of many when he said, “I ain’t got no quarrel with no Viet Cong.” Other
young men between the ages of 18 and 21 complained that they could be sent off to fight even though they had
no right to vote against the war. Congress took their complaint seriously. In 1971, it passed the Twenty-sixth
Amendment to the Constitution, which lowered the voting age to 18. The states ratified the amendment just
three months later.
Many young men took advantage of college deferment, a law that exempted college students from the draft.
However, they could be drafted after graduation, which is partly why many students opposed the war so
strenuously. Still, the draft fell disproportionately on poor Americans and minorities who were unable to attend
college. This led some critics to label Vietnam a “rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” Citing the large
proportion of African Americans in Vietnam, Martin Luther King Jr. called it “a white man’s war, a black
man’s fight.”
Section 5 – 1968: A Year of Crisis
By 1967, antiwar protesters had turned on President Johnson. Demonstrators chanted, “Hey, hey, LBJ. How
many kids did you kill today?” To counter growing opposition to the war, the Johnson administration tried to
persuade Americans that there was “light at the end of the tunnel.” Officials presented statistics and reports to
show that the United States was winning the war. They showed journalists’ captured enemy documents that
implied the insurgency was failing. LBJ visited military bases, where he touted U.S. prospects in Vietnam.
LBJ’s campaign to restore confidence worked. American support for the war effort increased—at least for a few
months. Then in January 1968, the Viet Cong and NVA started a campaign of their own, also aimed at
influencing American public opinion.
Tet Offensive Changes Americans’ View of the War
In the summer of 1967, North Vietnamese military planners decided on a risky new strategy. They would
launch attacks on cities in South Vietnam, while staging an uprising in the countryside. Communist leaders
hoped this strategy would reveal the failure of pacification efforts and turn Americans even more against the
war. They planned the attack to coincide with the Vietnamese holiday known as Tet. This holiday marked the
lunar New Year, when many ARVN troops would be home on leave.
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
On January 31, 1968, the Tet Offensive began. Like a shockwave rolling through South Vietnam, some 85,000
Viet Cong and NVA soldiers attacked cities, villages, military bases, and airfields. In Saigon, North Vietnamese
commandos blew a hole in the wall surrounding the U.S. embassy, but U.S. military police fought them off. The
North Vietnamese succeeded in holding the city of Hue
for nearly a month, but that was their only real military
success. In battle after battle, South Vietnamese and
U.S. forces pushed back the attackers. As many as
45,000 enemy soldiers, mostly Viet Cong, were killed.
In the countryside, no uprising occurred. In fact, the
brutality of the communist assault boosted rural
support for the South Vietnamese government.
Although it was a military disaster for the communists,
the Tet Offensive shocked the American people and
became a psychological defeat for the United States.
On their TV screens, Americans saw enemy soldiers
inside the walls of the U.S. embassy. They saw U.S.
bases under attack. They heard journalists’ startled
reports about the enemy’s ability to penetrate
American strongholds. No amount of positive analysis
from the administration could persuade reporters or the
public that this was a U.S. victory. Instead, many
Americans saw these statements as another example of
a widening credibility gap.
Bettmann/Corbis
In 1968, during the Tet holiday, Viet Cong and NVA soldiers launched a
major offensive across South Vietnam. Key battles took place in and
around Hue and Saigon. Viet Cong guerrillas did most of the fighting and
suffered most of the casualties. Some were also captured. In fact, after
Tet, the NVA had to handle most of the combat in the war.
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
The Tet Offensive had a major impact on American views of the Johnson
presidency and the Vietnam War. Public opinion polls taken after Tet showed
that many Americans had lost faith in the president and his handling of the
war.
Johnson Decides Not to Run for Reelection
As public confidence in Johnson fell, the president suffered
another sharp blow. This time it came from the nation’s
most respected television news anchor, Walter Cronkite.
Cronkite, who had traveled to Vietnam to cover the Tet
Offensive, delivered an on-camera editorial expressing his
view that Johnson had misled the American people. In a
solemn voice, he said, “It seems more certain than ever that
the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.”
Hearing this editorial, LBJ remarked, “That’s it. If I’ve lost
Cronkite, I’ve lost America.”
After Tet, polls showed that only 26 percent of Americans
approved of LBJ’s conduct of the war. Two Democratic
senators thought they could do better. Eugene McCarthy of
Minnesota, a fierce critic of the war, had already entered
the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Now
Robert Kennedy of New York, a favorite of civil rights and
antiwar activists, announced he would also run against
Johnson.
LBJ saw Tet as a political catastrophe. But General
Westmoreland saw it as an opportunity to finish off the
communists. He asked the president for 206,000 more
troops. Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford told LBJ that
even “double or triple that quantity” would not be enough
to destroy the enemy forces. LBJ decided to reject the
increase, leaving U.S. troop levels at around 500,000. He
then removed Westmoreland as commander of U.S. forces
in Vietnam. The president also considered Clifford’s
advice to try to open peace talks.
On March 31, 1968, Johnson stood before national
television cameras to make a momentous announcement.
The United States, he said, would try to “deescalate the
conflict” by cutting back on the bombing of North Vietnam
and by seeking a negotiated settlement of the war. An even
bigger announcement followed. LBJ told Americans, “I
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”
The Chaotic Election of 1968
The war had exhausted the president, and he seemed to think he had lost his political influence. Although LBJ
might have won the nomination if he had chosen to run, he threw his weight behind his vice president, Hubert
H. Humphrey. In June 1968, Humphrey became the likely nominee when his most experienced rival, Robert
Kennedy, was assassinated on the campaign trail by a lone gunman.
1968 had already been one of the most turbulent years in recent American history. The country was reeling
from the combined effects of the Vietnam War, antiwar protests and other social unrest, and the assassination of
Martin Luther King Jr. Now it was stunned by yet another assassination, this time of one of its leading political
figures. And there was more upheaval to come.
In August, delegates gathered in Chicago for the Democratic National Convention. Many of them backed the
antiwar views of McCarthy. Following a bitter debate, however, the convention endorsed a campaign platform
that supported President Johnson’s Vietnam policy. Under pressure from LBJ, Humphrey approved the platform
and won the Democratic nomination.
Bettmann/Corbis
Violence erupted at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The police attacked antiwar
protesters, and the protesters fought back. During a violent clash on August 28, some 100 demonstrators
were injured while 175 were arrested.
Meanwhile, thousands of antiwar protesters rallied in parks near the convention center. At times they
confronted police and national guardsmen called in by Mayor Richard Daley. On August 28, the violence
escalated. A clash occurred between Chicago police and a group of rowdy protesters trying to march into the
convention center. Some protesters threw rocks and bottles at the police, and police fired tear gas and beat
protesters and onlookers with batons and rifle butts. Americans watching the spectacle on television were
appalled.
In contrast, the Republican National Convention was a tidy affair. Delegates chose Richard M. Nixon,
Eisenhower’s vice president, as their candidate for president. Nixon’s speech accepting the nomination blasted
LBJ and the Democrats:
When the strongest nation in the world can be tied up for four years in a war in Vietnam with no end in sight,
when the richest nation in the world can’t manage its own economy, when the nation with the greatest tradition
of the rule of law is plagued by unprecedented lawlessness . . . then it’s time for new leadership for the United
States of America.
—Richard M. Nixon, August 8, 1968
52 - Facing Frustration in Vietnam
Humphrey and the Democrats never quite recovered from their disastrous convention. Nixon connected with
voters by promising to maintain “law and order” at home and secure “peace with honor” in Vietnam. In
November 1968, Americans voted for change, electing Nixon as their new president.